Live data from Hacker News

The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

eff.org

561–570 of 598 posts

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#561

In many states, children under some age are prohibited from using firearms. There is substantial evidence to show that firearms pose a real and present harm to individual children and large groups. An excellent rider to the KIDS act would be to mandate the installation of age (that is, identity) verification to all firearms in order to disable the safety.

It is hard to tell if this is a joke based on the username. There are people with this perspective though I assume. Thus I will respond to it. It's worth noting OP's proposed technology is impossibly far from existing in practice. Importantly, there are at least half a billion citizen-owned firearms in the USA without this theoretical technology, already. Therefore we should focus on something more effective. Such as…

I think they may have meant it as a poison pill.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#562
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in this scenario I'm defending the idea that sometimes "a lot of studies" that come out "kinda at the same time" aren't necessarily due to robust science but can be pushed by a specific agenda. If you actually cared to include the specific factor that you cited as a rationale for regulation, you'd get this: A bunch of studies: “CIGARETTES ARE FINE!” Tobacco industry: "We don't need to regulate that" A bunch of st…

I know what point you were trying to make, but I’m pointing out that your argument works against you much better than it works for you. The last point you make is just lame whataboutism.

> I know what point you were trying to make, but I’m pointing out that your argument works against you much better than it works for you.

Sure, if you go out of your way to try to ignore pretty much everything about the conversation up to that point and half of what I said.

> The last point you make is just lame whataboutism.

The entire point I'm trying to make is that the priorities of the people in power reflect what they actually care about. You're disregarding a plausible explanation for why things are playing out the way they are by dismissing each individual point I make against it individually rather than addressing the combination of factors that make it so concerning.

It's honestly hard to tell if you actually do understanding my point like you're claiming to. If you were confident that I was wrong, I don't understand why you're straw-manning my argument. If you think I'm spinning conspiratorial bullshit, then I'm not sure why you're taking the time to argue against it poorly.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#563
post #552
post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar. So the solution to parents deciding to give their kids access to stuff is to make me flash my ID every time I go online on one of my devices that I use in my childless household? And you're confident that there won'…

That's an argument you made, I was simply responding to this idea that parents don't want to parent. It's not true, they do, they just can't. A solution is needed, and I think age verification is a good start - divide apps into kid apps, and adult apps. Kid apps will be made such that parents have full access to them, and they are blocked from social networks, only individual messages, and pre-planned groups. Other s…

> I was simply responding to this idea that parents don't want to parent. It's not true, they do, they just can't.

I never claimed otherwise.

> A solution is needed, and I think age verification is a good start - divide apps into kid apps, and adult apps.

That's where I disagree. The existence of a problem that a lot of people want to solve doesn't mean that literally anything is better than nothing. We have much larger societal problems with known solutions that don't get implemented because some people argue that they introduce other problems that have gone an awfully long time without implementing (e.g. healthcare costs and universal healthcare, mass shootings and gun control). I've yet to see a plausible explanation for why this is so urgent that it requires addressing immediately by an invasive solution, but there's a pretty plausible explanation for why this one is so much more palatable to the people passing laws: the surveillance is useful to them for other reasons.

> Do you have a solution? And again, don't say "just parent the kid", because we've established that as impossible with modern devices.

Again, by that logic, we should have had medicare for all and enforced strict gun control decades ago. It's hard to believe that this is a consistent argument if you're not as vigorously arguing in favor of stuff like that.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#564
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. And assuming that device parental controls work, which (at least on iOS) they don't [1]. 1. https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-cont...

There's a big difference between your kid accessing inappropriate things at a friends house for a few hours a month and having that stuff at his or her fingertips 24/7. If parents were really concerned about this stuff they'd take the time to set up parental controls, but they don't. Which makes me pretty sure the push for all this isn't coming from parents.

> If parents were really concerned about this stuff they'd take the time to set up parental controls, but they don't. Which makes me pretty sure the push for all this isn't coming from parents.

I agree and moreover I cannot overstate how I do not want networks to have any PII about my children.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#565
post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah of course, it's all or nothing though. i have a 14 year old who is supposedly in a "no phones allowed" school, but they're on them all the time anyway (this is a separate issue) being able to setup a schedule with only approved apps being able to deliver pushes during a particular time period would be great

which ones do u want to keep

thank you for asking, it helped me realize i was probably using downtime within screen time wrong and it can probably get me what i really care about during school hours

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#566
post #19

Targeting the kids is so infuriatingly successful tactics. It gives the adults the option to be apathetic. In reality, anyone who is a kid now will never know any better. It just means we're the last generations that had the luxury of a world that remembered what privacy was.

EDIT: about half to two thirds of the responders didn't catch "I'm not a fan of these proposed solutions." I am not saying I like these solutions. I am trying to explain why they have support among the general public. Many of these responses are the usual "shoot the messenger" response you get online when you point out what the "other side" thinks and why they think it even if you don't necessarily agree . On this is…

The true solution to these problems is to be a parent. If you don't have the time to be a parent, then don't have kids. If you have kids, it's _your_ responsibility to keep them alive and healthy, both mentally and physically.

> Right now if you are not a tech-savvy parent your choices are: (1) deny children access to devices or severely limit that access, or (2) allow your kids to be raised by super-addictive infinite scroll brain rot feeds

> Now imagine you are a non-tech-savvy household with two parents who work. You can't really limit access since you can't supervise it enough, so your choice is now binary: no access, kids raised by brain rot and propaganda. Pick one. You have no control, no ability to whitelist, because not only do you not have time to deal with this but the tools often cost money and are imperfect and ineffective.

No access is the solution here. Tools are not expected to be perfect. The railing on a balcony is there for accidents, not to stop you from jumping off headfirst.

> Then you catch your 11 year old son watching extreme fetish porn that he lacks the maturity to contextualize, or hear him spouting off Nazi ideology or talking about how he's an "alpha male" and women should be his slaves. Or your daughter becomes anorexic by following influencers. Or you have a child who is questioning their sexual orientation or identity and is targeted by an online bullying ring. These are the commonplace examples. There's a lot of much worse shit too, like sextortion of kids. Search for "764."

Take away their internet access. If your child spends 90% of their time on phub, _take away their internet access_. If they spend 90% of their free time doomscrolling, _take away their phone_. If they need Internet access for school work, the can either do their school work at school, or you watch them do their schoolwork, or you find someone else to watch them do it. If you cannot do this, then you cannot be responsible for them and they should be removed from your care. This is basic mental health.

> That's why this push exists. It's not a conspiracy. It's because we -- our industry -- is an amoral shitshow that engineers addiction and refuses to police itself or provide parents with good tools to do so.

This isn't a third party policing the industry, this is telling the industry to police itself...by reaching inside my pockets to check my ID. Invasive security like X-ray machines at the airport aren't there for _your_ safety (regardless of what they say), they're there for _everyone else's_ safety: we're making sure you don't kill others.

> I'd also like to note that for the non-tech-savvy privacy is dead and has been dead for over ten years at least. If you are not tech-savvy your devices are recording everything about you and transmitting it to two dozen ad networks and data brokers.

> That's a different issue, and it's also being addressed by legislation in some places that actually care (not in much of the US, unfortunately).

That's a different issue, and it's also being addressed by legislation in some places that actually care (not in much of the US, unfortunately).

Privacy can be taught. We don't anymore. Nobody objected when platforms like Facebook started requiring real identities, but the simple answer to this is to not give out your information.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got new bike lanes installed around the neogboirhood after I wrote to the local city representative about it, then went to a city where I did a PowerPoint presentation of all the places that you could get killed if the driver wasn't paying attention. It took a month from first letter to new bikelanes.

This sounds like exactly the gumption we need to finally get the federal government to represent the common man.

Two people were killed in the next city within six months because no one bothered to fix their paths. One was a child.

If someone had bothered to write to that council they'd be alive.

But by all means, keep winning online arguments and doing nothing.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got new bike lanes installed around the neogboirhood after I wrote to the local city representative about it, then went to a city where I did a PowerPoint presentation of all the places that you could get killed if the driver wasn't paying attention. It took a month from first letter to new bikelanes.

This sounds like exactly the gumption we need to finally get the federal government to represent the common man.

No I'm with you, I'm inspired. Let's fight them!

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like exactly the gumption we need to finally get the federal government to represent the common man.

Two people were killed in the next city within six months because no one bothered to fix their paths. One was a child. If someone had bothered to write to that council they'd be alive. But by all means, keep winning online arguments and doing nothing.

[dead]

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#570
post #367
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attestation of age should suffice; no one in a building somewhere needs to verify my age. If I tell you to treat me like a minor, you do it. Operating systems and browsers can work together to send this as a header. If you're a concerned parent: set your children's ages in their device accounts. Done. This alternative solves the whole problem and it's been brought up a million times, but it doesn't matter, because th…

The problem is that not all parents are "concerned parents" and children dont deserve to be taken advantage of by trillion dollar corporations for the crime of having bad parents.

Children also don't deserve to have uncaring parents
Post reply on HN